Eating Jesus:

The History of Interpretation of John 6:53-58

Submitted by: Richard C. Wollan

SPO 1290

For: BS 820 – History of Biblical Interpretation

Professor – Dr. Lawson G. Stone 17 December 2009

W o l l a n | 2

yrgp yhwtya anh

tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou

hoc est corpus meum

das ist mein Leib

this is my body

―You chew Christ with your teeth!‖ So shouted Martin Luther at the memorable Marburg

Colloquy, in early October of 1529.1 The point of the Colloquy was to find common

ground between Luther and Zwingli on a wide range of doctrinal issues. They were able

to do just that, except when it came to the issue of Christ‘s presence during Holy

Communion. At the end of several days of debate, Luther could only say to Zwingli,

―Yours is a different spirit from ours.‖2 That difference of ―spirit‖ persists into the 21st

century. The 16th century debates over when, how and where Christ was to be found in

the church‘s celebration of the Lord‘s Supper have cast a very long shadow that

continues to cover Western Christianity.3 This means that when a modern exegete

arrives at texts like John 6:55, where Jesus is quoted as saying, ―My flesh is true

food…,‖4 he or she brings a heaping truckload of assumptions and interpretive lenses

that are not so easily set aside. There simply is no going back, or wiping our collective

1 Admittedly, this quote may be apocryphal in nature. While such a quote is recorded in my notes from college

(Dr. C.L. Bence being the lecturer) I was unable to support it from another source. Luther is reported to have said the following at the Colloquy: “The mouth receives Christ’s body, the soul believes the words while it is eating the body.” Found in: Erwin Iserloh, Joseph Glazik and Hubert Jedin, eds., Reformation and Counter Reformation (trans. Anselm Biggs and Peter W. Becker; vol. V of History of the Church; eds. Hubert Jedin and John Dolan; New York: Seabury Press, 1980), 251. It is also recorded that Luther, at the outset of the colloquy, wrote “This is my body” in chalk on the table. He believed the plain word of Christ could not be explained away by any exegetical trick or philosophical nuance. (Ibid., 250. Also in Philip Schaff, Modern Christianity: The German Reformation (vol. VII of History of the Christian Church; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997; according to New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1910, chp. 108 “The Marburg Conference continued: Discussion and Result”), cited 8 December 2009, online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.viii.html.) 2 Schaff, Modern Christianity: The German Reformation, chp. 108.

3 Through the missionary efforts of various denominations and Christian organizations, this typically “Western”

debate has been exported around the world! That is the bad news. The good news is that as Western Christians have encountered churches (such as the Orthodox) who missed out on the 16

th century debates, it has become

increasingly possible to look at the old dilemma with fresh eyes. 4 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

W o l l a n | 3

mind clean of the ongoing and divisive discussion. Perhaps, though, a return visit to the

hearts and minds of those whom the Reformers built upon (or rejected) will provide

some antique and altogether different lenses for our interpretive endeavors. It could

very well be that a return to a time that does not share the 16th century assumptions and

concerns will provide precisely the necessary jolt for the formation of a new paradigm.

Such a jolt will not induce amnesia, however. No doubt the memories of the arguments

of the Reformation will live on until the End of the Age. But removing the old, battle-

worn spectacles while also trying on different ones may help one to see things long

forgotten. In the end, such glasses may feel like an ill fit for a modern face, and the

vision may not be as clear as one had hoped; but maybe it will be clear enough to see

one‘s way out of the current rut and onto more promising paths.

The purpose of this paper is, I think, a modest one. I want to hear, and I want the

reader to hear, ancient and medieval commentary on John 6:53-58 in order to gain

some perspectives that are not encumbered by the prevailing debates of the last four-

hundred years. Of course, the biblical interpreters perused below were encumbered

with the debates of their own times as well! And while their concerns, our concerns and

the concerns of the Reformers may have some overlap they are certainly not identical.

It may well be exactly in this difference that new insights will be found. Therefore, the

goal in what follows is not to employ modern exegetical methods, or to find the ―right‖

understanding of John 6, or to find the hermeneutical key the Reformers lacked, or

(heaven forbid!) to solve the centuries long debate over the nature and meaning of the

Eucharist. The objective is simply to watch and listen—to see how ancient and

medieval exegetes worked with the text and to hear what they have to say about the

Johannine Jesus‘ enigmatic words. Then, at the very end, one will at least have a

modicum of knowledge from which to ask better questions and maybe, just maybe, from

which to offer pertinent comments.

Procedurally, I will cull the comments of several major interpreters from the ante-

Nicene, post-Nicene, Medieval, and Reformation periods. Also, before turning to

commentary on the John 6 passage in view, I will briefly describe some pertinent points

of Eucharistic theology as it developed through each of the four eras.

W o l l a n | 4

The Gospel of John 6:53-58

53 So Jesus said to the [the Jews], “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of

the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my

flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For

my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and

drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live

because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This

is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever

feeds on this bread will live forever.”

I. The Ante-Nicene Interpreters

A. Theological Background

It is crucial at the outset to sketch out the ante-Nicene Fathers‘ beliefs about

Christ‘s presence in the elements of the Eucharist. This will prove invaluable when we

turn to their direct comments on John 6. The Didache indicates that the bread and wine

are ―holy‖ and are spiritual food and drink giving eternal life.5 Ignatius (107 CE) states

flatly, ―I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the

bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,

the Son of God…and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible

love and eternal life.‖6 The allusion (if not direct quotation) to John 6 is hard to miss,

especially verses 33 and 35, where one finds the words ―bread of God,‖ ―comes down

from heaven,‖ and ―I am the bread of life.‖ Significantly, Ignatius seems just as veiled

as the Johannine Jesus himself—no direct mention of the Lord‘s Supper is made. In his

letter to the Smyrnaeans, however, he states the following in order to refute certain

heretics of an apparently Gnostic flavor:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death…. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they might also rise again.7

5 9:5 and 10:3; quoted in J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, 2003), 197.

6 Epistle to the Romans, chp. 7 (ANF 1:77).

7 Chp. 7 (ANF 1:89).

W o l l a n | 5

By stating that even the heretics can receive the benefits of Christ‘s life-giving

redemption if they will only treat the Eucharist ―with respect,‖ Ignatius brings up another

key element that will confront this study again and again: the necessity of faith. Lastly,

while encouraging believers to remain in communion with their bishop, with whom one

is ―breaking one and the same bread,‖ the apostolic father states that the Eucharist is

―the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, that we should

live for ever in Jesus Christ.‖8 There is more here than just chewing some blessed

bread. Not only faith, but also a genuine and united Chrsitian fellowship is an essential

ingredient at the Table.

Justin, in the mid Second Century, seems to be the first to indicate that a

change, of some sort, happens to the bread and wine when it is prayed over.9 He

states:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.10

Also of interest is how Justin grounds his Eucharistic theology in the Incarnation. Note

as well that Justin situates the eating and drinking within a well-defined Christian liturgy

which includes gathering on Sunday, readings from the Gospels, homily, prayer,

Communion, and a collection taken up for any who are in need.11 As with Ignatius, the

Eucharist is not an isolated, private act; but one that is performed within and by the

community of believers and must include prayer offered in faith. It is in this context, and

8 Epistle to the Ephesians, chp. 20 (ANF 1:58).

9 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 198.

10 The First Apology, chp. 66 (ANF 1:185).

11 Ibid., chp. 67.

W o l l a n | 6

no other, where common bread and wine are able to become the flesh and blood of

God‘s incarnate Son.

Irenaeus, writing against the many Gnostic heresies at the very end of the

Second Century, adds the element of a sacrificial offering:12

[Jesus] took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ―This is My body.‖ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant, which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament.13

A little later, he very concisely adds, ―And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to

the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, the things taken from His creation.‖14

Significantly, Irenaeus not only mentions the change that takes place to the bread and

wine (it becomes truly the body and blood of Christ), but also the transformation that

happens to the communicant:

Then, again, how can [the Gnostic heretics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life?.... For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.15

This is quite an intricate dance being described here. God creates, with thanksgiving

we offer to God his own, then through the transformed elements God offers to us to

immortal life gained through Christ‘s sacrifice. One might add to this choreography the

12

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 198. 13

Against Heresies, 4:17:5 (ANF 1:484). 14

Ibid., 4:18:4 (ANF 1:485). 15

Ibid., 4:18:5 (ANF 1:486).

W o l l a n | 7

last step of offering ourselves in sacrificial service to God. Indeed, in the Eucharist the

Christian believer finds encapsulated the whole of the redemption work of the Trinity.

In the Third Century, this simple identification of the elements with Christ‘s body

and blood receives some nuanced clarification, which may not have been necessary

prior to. While Tertullian and Cyprian certainly affirm the real and literal presence of

Christ‘s body and blood in the bread and wine, they also use language that indicates a

symbolical or sacramental understanding. They state that the elements are a ―figure‖ or

a ―representation‖ of Christ‘s body.16 We moderns, betraying our inheritance from the

Reformation, are apt to ask, ―So, which is it?! Real or symbolic?‖ The minds of

antiquity, however, do not seem to have such a neat and clean dichotomy. In the East,

especially, the Eucharist is increasingly referred to as the ―holy mysteries.‖ And mystery

seems to be at the heart of the matter, because the exact nature of the relationship

between figure and reality ultimately eludes (or is not addressed) by the early Fathers.

It can be said with confidence that the bread and wine, somehow, partake of the reality

to which they point; so much so that it is not incorrect to equate them.17 But, again, as

the church moves into the Third Century, there are indications that such a strong

identification of figure and reality must not totally lose sight of ―the sacramental

distinction between them.‖ 18

Two last items from the ante-Nicene period bear mentioning before moving on to

the interpretations of John 6. First, beginning with the Alexandrian fathers, Clement and

Origen, there is an increasing tendency to spiritualize the partaking of the Eucharistic

16

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 212. 17

Erich Auerbach distinguishes between “symbol” and “figure.” He states, “The symbol must possess magic power, not the figura; the figura, on the other hand, must always be historical, but not the symbol.” In Scenes from the Drama of European Literature (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973), 57. 18

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 212.

W o l l a n | 8

elements that seems to correspond with the rise of allegorical interpretations of the

Scripture.19 A number of passages from Origen suggests that ―for him Christ‘s body

and blood signify, in a deeper and more spiritual sense, His teaching, the ineffable truth

which He reveals and which nourishes and sustains the soul.‖20 Secondly, a fuller idea

of a re-enacted sacrifice in the Eucharist is explicated, especially by Cyprian. It is not

just Christ who is being offered up to the Father, however. In union with Christ, His

church is also presented as a sacrificial offering at the Lord‘s Table.

The ante-Nicene period‘s view on the Lord‘s Supper can, perhaps, be

summarized with the following basic ideas: Christ‘s body and blood are truly present in

the consecrated bread and wine, corporate worship and faith are a crucial context, the

communicant coming in faith is truly changed by partaking, the idea of the Eucharist as

a re-presented sacrifice is a growing notion, also increasing is the sacramental

connection between figure and reality, lastly is growing tendency to spiritualize what is

taking place at the Table.

B. Ante-Nicene Comments on John 6

In truth, prior to Origen we do not have in our possession any kind of systematic

commentary on Scripture. The words of Ignatius of Antioch quoted above (―the bread of

God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ‖), which

seem to allude to the wording of John 6:33-35, as well as 6:53-58, may be the closest

one will come to an ―interpretation‖ of our text. While Ignatius certainly has John 6 in

view, it cannot be certain that his comments describe his thoughts on the Eucharist

itself. Perhaps it is what the Eucharist points to (union with Christ and eternal life) that

19

Ibid., 213. 20

Ibid., 214

W o l l a n | 9

is most centrally in view here. Ignatius is, after all, on his way to martyrdom. It is

difficult to discern from his words exactly what he believes happens in the Eucharist and

whether or not he thinks John 6 is a clear reference to it. Strong arguments have been

made on both sides of the sacramental divide (Luther and Zwingli, for example!) and I

will not pretend to solve the dispute here. However, it is hard to conceive that Ignatius

did not have the Lord‘s Supper in mind in some way when he is so explicitly discussing

his desire for Christ‘s body and blood—even as he recognizes the heavenly realities

behind the ritual eating and drinking. It does not seem too much to assert that he would

have similar thoughts on the meaning of John 6. Little more can be gathered from

Justin, Irenaeus, etc. than what has already been stated in the section above.

Therefore, for biblical comment we move ahead to Origen‘s interpretive work.

In the field of the history of biblical interpretation, ―Origen‖ and ―allegory‖ are

often spoken together in the same breath. The joke could well run that next to the entry

of ―allegory‖ in the dictionary, one will find Origen‘s picture affixed to it! Of course, in

truth his actual exegesis involved a meticulous attention to every word in the biblical text

as the Holy Word of God. He carefully worked in Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in

order establish the received text of Scripture that would serve as the foundation of his

interpretive work. For Origen, in the end, however, it was the spiritual truth to which the

literal meaning pointed that was the real goal of each text of the Bible. And we have

already noted his tendency to spiritualize the Lord‘s Supper for the life of the believer.

In his treatise On Prayer, he states the following:

How manifold and varying, is the nourishing Word, since not everyone can be nourished by the solid and vigorous food of divine teachings. That is why, when he wishes to offer food for an athlete, suitable for the more perfect, He says, ―The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh‖ (Jn. 6:51), and a little

W o l l a n | 10

further on, ―Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you‖ .[Origen here goes on to quote the rest of John 6:53-57]. This is the ―true food,‖ the ―flesh‖ of Christ, existing as the Word become flesh according to the verse, ―The Word became flesh‖ (Jn. 1:14). And when we eat and drink Him, He also has dwelt in us. And when He is distributed there is fulfilled the verse, ―We have beheld His glory,‖ (Jn. 1:14). ―This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever,‖ (Jn. 6:58).21

Clearly, Origen does have the Eucharist in mind here, since he mentions Jesus being

―distributed.‖ But one also has the unshakable sense that Origen means much more.

Just as the literal meaning (the fleshly level of interpretation) of Scripture largely has

value as a doorway leading to the greater and more substantive heavenly reality (the

spiritual level of interpretation), so also the main import of partaking of the consecrated

bread and wine lies in its potent ability to transport one beyond its physical aspect into

the real nourishment that Christ provides, in himself and in his teaching. In essence

Origen employs our text from John 6 to make the case that Jesus is referring to strong

spiritual meat that comes to the spiritually mature disciple who has devoured the

teachings of Jesus. The Platonic framework in which Origen lives and breathes does

not allow him to stop with the simple equation of bread with Christ‘s body. In Book 10 of

his Commentary on John, he is discussing the ―eating of the Word‖ when he quotes

John 6:53-56 and follows it by stating:

…perhaps this is the flesh of the lamb which takes away the sin of the world, and perhaps this is the blood from which one must put some on the two doorposts and on the lintel in the houses in which we eat the pasch. And perhaps we must eat of the meat of this lamb in the time of the world, which is night. And we must eat the meat roasted with fire with unleavened bread. For the Word of God is not only flesh.22

21

Origen (trans. Rowan A. Greer; Classics of Western Spirituality; eds. Richard J. Payne and Ewert H. Cousins; New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 138-39. 22

Paragraph 99 in Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 1-10 (trans. Ronald E. Heine; The Fathers of the Church; eds. Thomas P. Halton, et.al.; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1989), 276.

W o l l a n | 11

He goes onto to indicate that by the means of ―the boiling spirit‖ and the ―fiery words

given by God‖ the ―meat of the lamb‖ will be roasted so that ―those who partake of it

say, as Christ speaks in us, ‗Our heart was burning in the way as he opened the

Scriptures to us.‘‖ Again, this eating is on divine teaching, as Origen goes on to

describe, ―We must begin eating from the head, that is from the most important and

principal teachings about heavenly things, and we must end at the feet, that is the final

elements of the lessons which investigate the uttermost nature in the things which

exist….‖23 The bottom line for Origen is that in John 6 Jesus is calling his followers to a

greater level of maturity so that by feasting on him the disciple may truly know the

Father.24 This theme of union with God through the flesh of Christ will be a major theme

as we turn to the post-Nicene Fathers.

II. The Post-Nicene Interpreters

A. Theological Background

The major voices of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries never deny the very real

presence of Christ in the bread and wine of Communion, but they do venture out into

theories as to how this is so. A definite distinction is made between what human

senses perceive (bread and wine) and what the soul receives by faith (Christ himself).

It is Augustine who famously makes the distinction between ―sign‖ and ―reality.‖

Chrysostom, in the same vein, insists that one must be careful to attend to the Lord‘s

promise which cannot be grasped by sense perception alone.25 Theodore of

23

Par. 105-06 in Ibid., 277-78. 24

Commentary on John, Book 19, par. 39 in Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 13-32 (trans. Ronald E. Heine; The Fathers of the Church; eds. Thomas P. Halton, et.al.; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1989), 176. 25

Homilies on Matthew, 82,4, quoted in Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 422.

W o l l a n | 12

Mopsuestia states, ―Every sacrament is the indication, by means of signs and symbols,

of invisible and ineffable realities.‖26 And Ambrose (who certainly influences

Augustine‘s thinking on this matter) helpfully points out that just as human beings have

a two-fold nature, physical and spiritual, so do the consecrated elements—which

explains their reliable power.27 Additionally, others like Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory

Nazianzus, Macarius of Egypt and Athanasius all use terms like ―antitype‖, ―figure,‖

―sign,‖ and ―symbol‖ to describe the elements while, at the same time, maintaining the

reality of Christ‘s body and blood in the Eucharist.28

There were, however, those who followed more closely in the spiritualizing

exercises of Origen. Eusebius of Caesarea was one such imitator of Origenist

interpretation. Like Origen, he does not reject the inherited teaching of the real

presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist but, also like Origen, he seeks

to send the thoughts of the communicant to a higher plane. Commenting on John 6

specifically, Eusebius claims that Jesus is here teaching his disciples that the eating

and drinking required is not his physical body and blood, but rather an ingesting of his

holy teaching.29 Egyptian monk, Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 CE), also seeks a more

robust spiritual understanding of the Eucharist, which one can see in his comments:

We eat His flesh and drink His blood, becoming partakers through the incarnation both of the sensible life of the Word and of His wisdom. For by the terms ―flesh‖ and ―blood‖ He both denoted the whole of His mystic sojourning on earth, and pointed to His teaching, consisting as it did of practical, natural and theological insights.‖30

26

Hom. Cat. 12,2, quoted in Ibid. 27

De myst. 8; de sacram. 1,10, quoted in Ibid. 28

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 443-44. 29

Eccl. Theol. 3,12, quoted in Ibid., 442. 30

Basil, ep. 8,4, Ibid.

W o l l a n | 13

Evagrius seeks a path that includes both physical and spiritual realities. One can feel

the echoes of Ignatius reverberating in the monk‘s words. Also within the spiritualizing

mode is the belief of Cyril of Jerusalem that the communicant and the corporate body of

believers are truly united to Christ through partaking of the consecrated bread and wine,

which have truly become Christ‘s body and blood.31

The notion that the bread and wine becomes Christ‘s body and blood during the

prayer of consecration, is another important development taking place in the Fourth

Century. Cyril of Jerusalem, again, posits that God sends the Holy Spirit upon the

bread and wine in response to the prayer of the presbyter or bishop. And by the Spirit‘s

touch they are transformed into Christ‘s body and blood.32 This must be so, because

whatever the Holy Spirit touches is changed and made holy. Gregory of Nyssa goes

even further with speculation as to how Christ‘s body and blood can be present so

ubiquitously.33 Chrysostom, emphasizing that a real change has taken place, proclaims

that one is truly eating Christ, even ―burying one‘s teeth in His flesh,‖34 thus preempting

Luther‘s line that Christ is chewed with one‘s teeth by over a thousand years!

Ambrose also avers that a real, albeit mystical, change takes place at the

consecration—a change that is a ―miracle of divine power‖ and a ―quasi-creative act‖

which changes the nature of the bread and wine into something they were not before.35

Theodoret, seeming to anticipate Aquinas, provides a more nuanced view of what

happens to the elements. Arguing against monophysite notions, Theodoret claims that

the elements do not stop being bread and wine after the prayer of consecration, for

31

Cat. 22,1, Ibid. 32

Cat. 23,7, Ibid., 443. 33

Or. Cat. 37, Ibid. 34

Homilies on John, 46,3, quoted in Ibid., 444. 35

De myst. 51-53, quoted in Ibid., 446.

W o l l a n | 14

―they remain in their former substance, appearance and form, visible and tangible as

before.‖36 He believes that the bread and wine are simply changed into the ―vehicles of

divine grace. . . . [for] in designating them His body and blood Christ did not change

their nature, but added grace to their nature.‖37

Turning now to Augustine, we find the theological giant of the Western church

forming a synthesis of the literal and spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord‘s Supper.

On the one hand, he says to the newly baptized, receiving their first Commuion:

That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ‘s body. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ‘s blood. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey His body and blood, which is shed for us.38

In another sermon Augustine, using his characteristically powerful rhetoric, states, ―You

know what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, Whom you are eating

and Whom you are drinking.‖39 On the other hand, he insists that the bread and wine as

physical objects are really ―signs‖ of Christ‘s body and blood.40 While for convenience

one may call the bread and wine his body and blood, they are not so simply, but only

―after a fashion.‖41 Augustine also reminds his hearers that Christ‘s actual body

ascended into heaven and that his body and blood in the Eucharist is not like ―flesh rent

asunder in a corpse or sold in the meat-market.‖42 The body and blood, for the Bishop

of Hippo, are received sacramentally, that is in figura.43 Augustine rhetorically asks,

36

Quoted in Ibid., 445. 37

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 445. 38

Serm. 227, Ibid., 447. 39

Serm. 9,14, Ibid. 40

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 448. 41

Ibid. 42

Tract. In ev. John, 27,5, quoted in Ibid., 449. 43

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 449.

W o l l a n | 15

―Why make ready your teeth and your belly? Believe and you have eaten.‖44 And again

he states, ―To believe in Him is to eat living bread. He who believes eats, and is

invisibly filled, because he is reborn invisibly.‖45

The Fathers of the Nicene and post-Nicene period bring forward the Eucharistic

theology of their predecessors, albeit in a more refined and even speculative fashion.

Augustine‘s spiritualization of the sacraments brings Origen‘s ideas to the fore, but that

would not remain so through the Middle Ages, where the priest, Christ‘s real presence,

and salvific sacrifice would come to dominate.

B. Post-Nicene Comments on John 6

Several common themes emerge as one encounters post-Nicene commentary

on John 6:53-58. The Fathers teach that Jesus is instructing his disciples concerning

the dual nature of the Eucharist, that it is both physical and spiritual, and therefore

precisely because of this dual nature, God can be in the believer and the believer in

God (when one comes by faith). In other words, the communicant‘s nature is united to

Christ‘s nature who imparts eternal life. Additionally, the individuals who make up the

church are united to one another as each is united to Christ in the Eucharist.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical Lectures, takes up the issue of the

Eucharist‘s (and Christ‘s) dual nature. He states that the Jews in John 6:52 believed

Jesus was advocating cannibalism because they were part of the old covenant. But in

the new covenant Jesus, in John 6, indicates that he is offering,

…the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation, which sanctify body and soul. For as bread corresponds to the body, so the Word is appropriate to the soul. So do not think of them as mere bread and wine. In accordance with the Lord‘s declaration, they are body and blood. And if our senses suggests otherwise, let

44

Tract. In ev. John, 25,12, quoted in Ibid.

W o l l a n | 16

faith confirm you. Do not judge the issue on the basis of taste, but on the basis of faith be assured beyond all doubt that you have been allowed to receive the body and blood of Christ.46

Nearly a century later, in the mid Fifth Century, another Cyril, this one of Alexandria,

comments that Jesus is offering this hard teaching to the Jews to teach the church the

necessity of faith before coming to the sacrament. He says in his Commentary on the

Gospel of John, ―…the Lord refrained from telling them how he would give them his

flesh to eat, calling them to believe before they seek. . . .But to those who believe he

declares it most clearly [in the word of Institution].‖47 Cyril sounds the theme of union

with God when he also says, in the same section of his Commentary, ―Whoever eats

the holy flesh of Christ has eternal life because his flesh has the Word which is by

nature life.‖48

Chrysostom, preaching on vs. 55-56, instructs his congregation that Jesus truly

offers his body and blood for salvation and for union with God:

Ver. 55. ―For my flesh is true meat, and My blood is true drink.‖ What is that He saith? He either desireth to declare that this is the true meat which saveth the soul, or to assure them concerning what had been said, that they might not suppose the words to be a mere enigma or parable, but might know that it is by all means needful to eat the Body. Then He saith, Ver. 56. ―He that eateth My flesh, dwelleth in Me.‖ This He said, showing that such an one is blended with Him.49

Augustine, in his comments, highlights that Jesus is describing a union with him and

with all believers:

He‘s here talking about the fellowship of the saints where there is peace and unity, full and perfect. . . . our Lord has chosen for the types of his body and blood things that become one out of many. Bread is a quantity of grains united

46

4.4-6, quoted in John 1-10 (eds. Joel C. Elowsky and Thomas C. Oden; Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, vol. IVa; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 239. 47

4.2, quoted in Ibid., 239-40. 48

Ibid., quoted in Ibid., 240. 49

Homilies on the Gospel of John 47.1 (NPNF1 14:168).

W o l l a n | 17

into one mass, wine a quantity of grapes squeezed together. Then he explains what it is to eat his body and drink his blood: ―He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him.‖ So then to partake of that meat and that drink is to dwell in Christ and Christ in you. Whoever does not dwell in Christ, and in whom Christ does not dwell, neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood; rather, he eats and drinks the sacrament of it to his own damnation.‖50 At this point, it is worthwhile to pause note that the history of interpretation of

John 6 up to this period is nearly all of a spiritual sort. Cyril of Jerusalem does note the

cannibalistic thoughts of Jesus‘ original, Jewish hearers, but that is as much as the

literal meaning of the text is dealt with. For the Fathers, the whole point of Jesus‘

discourse in John 6 is spiritual and anagogical. To the extent that Jesus was being

literal only directs the reader to the literal presence of Jesus‘ body and blood in the

Eucharistic elements. They all seem to be applying Origen‘s exegetical rule that if the

literal meaning of the text is non-sensical, it is because God intends the reader to direct

his or her gaze upwards to the higher meaning.

Returning to the Fathers‘ commentary, we find Hilary of Poitiers in the mid Fourth

Century, also declaring that Jesus is teaching a radical union between himself and the

church in John 6:

If in truth the Word has been made flesh and we in very truth receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, are we not bound to believe that he abides in us naturally? Jesus, born as a man, has assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from himself and has joined together the nature of his own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which his flesh is communicated to us. For in this way we are all one, because the Father is in Christ and Christ is in us.51

Upon reading Hilary‘s remarks it is difficult to keep one‘s mind from drifting back and

forth through the whole Gospel of John: from chapter 1 where the Word becomes flesh

and dwells among us, to chapter 17 where Jesus petitions his Father for an intricate

50

Tractates on the Gospel of John 26.17-18, quoted in John 1-10 (ACCS - NT, vol. IVa) 240. 51

On the Trinity 8.13-14, quoted in Ibid., 241.

W o l l a n | 18

union between themselves and all who believe on him. It may not be a stretch to see

here an exegetical exercise in Hilary where he is using the context of the entire Gospel

in interpret chapter 6.

It seems most appropriate to end this section on the comments of the post-

Nicene Fathers with the soaring homiletical words of Augusinte:

[In John 6] the Lord and master was inviting his slaves, and the food he had prepared for them was himself. Who would ever dare to eat his own Lord and master? And yet he said, ―Whoever eats me lives because of me.‖ When Christ is eaten, life is eaten. Nor is he killed in order to be eaten, but he brings life to the dead. When he is eaten, he nourishes without diminishing. So do not be afraid, brothers and sisters, of eating this bread, in case we should possibly finish it and find nothing to eat later on. Let Christ be eaten; when eaten he lives because when slain he rose again!52

III. Medieval Exegetes

A. Theological Background

In inverse proportion to the vastness of the Medieval material on the subject of

the Eucharist, the comments here will be brief. The excesses and abuses of the Roman

Church of the Middle Ages, especially in the area of the sacraments as a means of

control over the populace, has been much discussed and is widely known. I am not

interested in continuing to kick a dead horse in this paper. It is sufficient to know that

the church of the Middle Ages ran the Eucharistic theology of the post-Nicene Fathers

to its logical conclusions (a typically Western thing to do). If Christ‘s body and blood

(the Cross) is necessary for salvation of the soul, and his body and blood is made truly

present at the Mass through the ministrations of the priest, and the priest‘s ordination is

52

Sermon 132A.I, quoted in Ibid., 242.

W o l l a n | 19

bestowed by the Catholic Church, ergo the Church controls the salvation and damnation

of souls. Abuses of power were bound to follow.53

Additionally, the platonic worldview of antiquity was overthrown by the

rediscovery of Aristotle. The fruit of this philosophical revolution is seen most clearly in

Aquinas‘ Aristotelian framework which he placed upon his understanding of what

happens to the bread and wine during the prayer of consecration. The doctrine of

transubstantiation is born: the elements are composed of both ―accidents‖ (the outward

appearance) and ―substance‖ (the true, invisible nature)—at the words of Institution,

―this is my body…‖ the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into Christ‘s

body and blood, but the accidents remain unchanged. The bread still looks, smells, and

tastes like bread; likewise the wine. But their true inward nature, their substance, is now

become the actual, corporeal body and blood of Jesus Christ. The spiritual lifting that

the physical elements are to cause to take place in the communicant (according to the

early Fathers), is nearly buried underneath a seemingly mechanical, clinical, business-

like transaction now taking place at the Table. The last key element to mention as

background is the growing infrequency of lay participation in actually receiving the bread

and cup at the Mass. Except for one or two occasions during the year, it is increasingly

the priests only who receive. What was to facilitate union with Christ, instead now

seems to create distance. Nevertheless, the Eucharist was serious business to the

Medieval commentator.

B. Medieval Commentary on John 6

53

The church in the East without the strict hierarchy of the Papacy, tended towards an increasing mysticism that removed the Eucharist from having relevance for the day-to-day life of the laity.

W o l l a n | 20

We begin the Medieval commentary with the high, spiritual gaze of John of

Damascus (c. 676 – 749). His words will provide an Eastern flavor to this heavily

Western survey. John was an Arab monk and priest who resided, for most of his

ascetic life, in a monastery near Jerusalem. He blends the words of the Gospel (John

6:53) with his rich Eucharistic theology. There seems to be little that partaking of the

Lord‘s Supper will not accomplish in the life of the true believer:

The bread and wine are not a figure of the body and blood of Christ—God forbid!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ―This is my body‖; not ―a figure of my body‖ but ―my body,‖ and not ―a figure of my blood‖ but ―my blood.‖ Even before this He had said to the Jews: ―except you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.‖ And again: ―He that eateth me, shall live.‖

Wherefore, in all fear and with a pure conscience and undoubting faith let us approach, and it will be altogether as we believe and do not doubt. . . . Let us approach it with burning desire, and with our hands folded in the form of a cross. . . . With eyes, lips, and faces turned toward it let us receive the divine burning coal, so that the fire of the coal may be added to the desire within us to consume our sins and enlighten our hearts, and so that by this communion of the divine fire we may be set afire and deified. . . . [For] the bread of communion is not a plain bread, but bread joined with the Godhead.54

John of Damascus talks mysteriously of the communicant being ―set afire and deified.‖

In this wording we see the material of John 6 deeply informing the East‘s idea of

theosis-- a radical uniting of the believer with the Triune God whereby he or she

partakes, in an intimate way, of the Divine nature. John 6 is here being used to support

Athanasius‘ famous dictum, ―God became man so that man could become [like] God.‖

Meanwhile, in England, the Venerable Bede (673-735) is providing the Western

church with rich and deep interpretations of the Scriptures. Reading the Exodus

typologically and allegorically, he sees Christians as the ones who are now liberated

54

The Orthodox Faith, Book 4, chp. 13 in St. John of Damascus: Writings (trans. Frederic H. Chase, Jr.; The Fathers of the Church; eds. Roy Joseph Deferrari, et.al.; New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958), 358-59.

W o l l a n | 21

from the ―yoke of Egyptian servitude,‖ having passed through the Red Sea which is

baptism and the forgiveness of sins. He then sermonizes, by saying:

In the midst of the hardships of the present life, as though in the dryness of a desert, we await the entry promised us into our heavenly fatherland. In this desert we are in danger of wasting away from spiritual thirst and hunger, if our Redeemer‘s gifts do not strengthen us, if the sacraments of his incarnation do now renew us. He himself is the manna which refreshes us with heavenly nourishment. . . . He himself is the rock which intoxicates us with spiritual gifts—the rock who, when struck by the wood of the cross, pours forth from his side the drink which is life for us. Hence he says in the gospel, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will not ever thirst.” And, fittingly enough in the sphere of figurative meaning, the people were first saved through the sea, and so mystically came to the food, the manna, and to the rock, the drink, for he first cleanses us with the water of regeneration, and then allows us to cross over to a participation in the sacred altar, where we will receive a share in the flesh and blood of our Redeemer.55

Rather than the notion of union with God in this present life, Bede emphasizes Christ

and the Eucharist as an essential resource that will enable to believer to arrive, at last,

in heaven. It is a spiritual journey requiring spiritual food and drink. By faith we receive

very real, but very spiritual nourishment.

In the high Middle Ages, Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349), claims that the literal

exegesis of John 6:55, ―My flesh is true food and my flesh is true drink,‖ demonstrates

clearly that the sacrament must be a good deal more than a mere sign and symbol.56

His evidence is the use of the adjective ―true.‖ Nicholas takes this as such a given that

he goes on to state that he sees no reason to remark on this in his ―moral exegesis,‖ as

the ―literal exegesis‖ gives all that needs be said on this matter.57

55

Homily I.16 on the Gospels in Bede the Venerable, Homilies on the Gospels: Book One, Advent to Lent (trans. Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst; Cistercian Studies Series: Number One Hundred Ten; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1991), 164. 56

Lesley Smith, “The Gospel Truth: Nicholas of Lyra of John,” in Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, eds. Philip D.W. Krey and Lesley Smith (ed. Heiko A. Oberman; Studies in the History of Christian Thought, vol. XC; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 233. 57

Ibid.

W o l l a n | 22

Lastly, we must hear from Thomas Aquinas. In his defense of the full humanity

of Christ, Aquinas finds a defense for the real presence at the Eucharist.58 Aquinas‘

exegesis of John 1 provides evidence that God, who is spirit, could fully enter into a

material body in the Incarnation. Similarly, as he turns to John 6, he applies the same

Incarnational principle: just as Christ‘s humanity is the ―instrument‖ of his divinity used

to effect the salvation of human souls; so also the bread and wine of the Mass are the

instruments of the divine self-giving.59 Further, as John 6 indicates, by receiving the

bread of life who is Christ, one also receives Christ himself. Aquinas explains this as

follows:

Now Christ is within us in two ways: in our intellect through faith, so far as it is faith; and in our affections through love, which informs or gives life through our faith: ―He who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him‖ (1Jn 4:16). So he who believes in Christ so that he tends to him, possess Christ in his affections and in his intellect. And if we add that Christ is eternal life, as is stated in ―that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life‖ (1Jn 5:20), and ―In him was life‖ (John 1:4), we can infer that whoever believes in Christ has eternal life. He has it, I say, in its cause and in hope, and he will have it at some time in reality.60

He continues by asserting that abiding in Christ results in the opposite of what happens

when physical food is taken in. When one eats, the food is transformed inside of the

one who is eating. But when one consumes spiritual food, the one who eats is

transformed.61 For Aquinas, the teaching of John 6 and the purpose of the Eucharist is

the metamorphosis of the communicant into the likeness of the One being consumed.

Such is the fullness of salvation. Like Augustine, Aquinas pushes the believer to lift his

58

Matthew Levering, Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas (eds. Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 2005), xxi. 59

Ibid. 60

John 6, lect. 6, n. 950, quoted by Carlo Leget, “The Concept of ‘Life’ in the Commentary on St. John”, Ibid., 165. 61

John 6, lect. 7, n. 972, quoted by Ibid.

W o l l a n | 23

or her eyes to the spiritual reality being effected by the bread and wine; and like the

Fathers and the Eastern church, he sees the ultimate goal as union with God.

IV. Revisiting the Reformers

As we come back, now to the Reformers, it is not necessary to give a long

explanation of the theological background because they are very much the inheritors of

the Middle Ages. For example, you see in Zwingli and the Anabaptists a very strong re-

action against the inheritance of the Middle Ages. If the Roman Church has put all its

eggs in the literal, physical side of Christ‘s presence at the Eucharist, then surely (the

reasoning of reaction goes) the exact opposite must be the real truth. Therefore Zwingli

puts all his eggs in the spiritual basket of Christ‘s presence at the Eucharist. He

recovers a solid patristic notion—Origen‘s spiritual take on Communion—but loses

entirely the solid witness of the Father‘s concerning the very real presence of Christ in

the consecrated bread and wine. Luther seems to react in the opposite way, nearly

losing sight of the spiritual vitality of the sacrament in his vigorous defense of its

corporeality.

Perhaps this re-action and over re-action is what makes Erasmus (1466 – 1536)

such a breath of fresh air. In his Paraphrase on John, addressing our John 6 passage

in particular he says the following (note his acute balance between physical and

spiritual):

[Jesus is saying] whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life from that eating and drinking. Not only will his soul live on in bliss on this food and drink, but his body will also be revived and the whole person will enjoy eternal life with me. For as human food that has passed into the stomach and been distributed throughout the members becomes the substance of the body, so that food is now identical with the person who eats it, likewise conversely whoever eats me is spiritually changed into me. Then, since I am the author and pioneer

W o l l a n | 24

of the resurrection, I will not allow my members to be torn from me. On the last day I shall raise from the dead anyone who has been grafted into me by this food and drink, so that because he wholly believed in me, he shall wholly live with me forever. . . . So my flesh is truly the bread which provides immortality and my blood is truly the drink that bestows eternal life, not on the body alone but on the whole person.62

It is very interesting to see the same illustration Aquinas used about food and the stomach—and in a paraphrase! A little further on, his paraphrase reads this way concerning union with the Father:

The Father who sent me is the first source of all life. Whoever is joined to him becomes a sharer in life. Therefore as the Father is in me and imparts to me life and the power of giving life to others, likewise to anyone who eats me, and by the mystical eating and drinking is so joined to me that he becomes one body with me, I myself shall impart life, not life that will last for a little while but eternal life.63

Again, as in earlier periods, the themes of faith, life, the union of physical and spiritual,

and union with God are all prominent features of Erasmus‘ interpretation—all balanced

and held together as a unified whole.

We began with Luther and we will end with him, but before we do Calvin‘s (1509

– 1564) contribution must be noted. When it comes to his Eucharistic theology he is

famous for by-passing the issue of Christ‘s presence at the Table by relocating the

whole scene. Instead of Christ coming down to the church‘s worship, he sees the

church‘s worship being elevated into the courts of heaven through the sacrament of the

Lord‘s Supper. In that way Christ is truly present but not necessarily reduced to the

small confines of bread and wine. In his Institutes, while discussing how the exodus of

the Israelites pre-figures the work of Christ and the Christian life, he has this discourse

on the words of Jesus in John 6:49,51:

62

Trans. Jane E. Philips; Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 46; ed. Robert D. Sider (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 86-87. 63

Ibid., 87.

W o l l a n | 25

―Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.‖ ―If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.‖ There is no difficulty in reconciling the two passages. The Lord, as he was addressing hearers who only desired to be filled with earthly food, while they cared not for the true food of the soul, in some degree adapts his speech to their capacity, and, in particular, to meet their carnal view, draws a comparison between manna and his own body. They called upon him to prove his authority by performing some miracle, such as Moses performed in the wilderness when he obtained manna from heaven. In this manna they saw nothing but a relief of the bodily hunger from which the people were then suffering; they did not penetrate to the sublimer mystery to which Paul refers. Christ, therefore, to demonstrate that the blessing which they ought to expect from him was more excellent than the lauded one which Moses had bestowed upon their fathers, draws this comparison: If, in your opinion, it was a great and memorable miracle when the Lord, by Moses, supplied his people with heavenly food that they might be supported for a season, and not perish in the wilderness from famine; from this infer how much more excellent is the food which bestows immortality. We see why our Lord omitted to mention what was of principal virtue in the manna, and mentioned only its meanest use. Since the Jews had, as it were by way of upbraiding, cast up Moses to him as one who had relieved the necessity of the people by means of manna, he answers, that he was the minister of a much larger grace, one compared with which the bodily nourishment of the people, on which they set so high a value, ought to be held worthless. Paul, again, knowing that the Lord when he rained manna from heaven, had not merely supplied their bodies with food, but had also dispensed it as containing a spiritual mystery to typify the spiritual quickening which is obtained in Christ, does not overlook that quality which was most deserving of consideration. Wherefore it is surely and clearly proved, that the same promises of celestial and eternal life, which the Lord now gives to us, were not only communicated to the Jews, but also sealed by truly spiritual sacraments.64

In many ways there are flavors of Origen here in Calvin. The physicality of the

sacraments is important in as much as it opens the way to the weightier matters of the

spirit. However, when Calvin comments on the Gospel itself (specifically 6:53), he

sounds much closer to Zwingli than Luther (although as noted above, Calvin did

consider the Lord‘s Supper as more than just a memorial of Christ‘s death):

When he says, the flesh of the Son of man, the expression is emphatic; for he reproves them for their contempt, which arose from perceiving that he resembled other men. The meaning therefore is: ―Despise me as much as you please, on account of the mean and despicable appearance of my flesh, still that despicable

64

2.10.6

W o l l a n | 26

flesh contains life; and if you are destitute of it, you will nowhere else find any thing else to quicken you.‖ The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is, the Lord‘s Supper; for this discourse does not relate to the Lord‘s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord‘s Supper. Nor were the Bohemians in the right, when they adduced this passage to prove that all without exception ought to be admitted to the use of the cup. With respect to young children, the ordinance of Christ forbids them to partake of the Lord‘s Supper; because they are not yet able to know or to celebrate the remembrance of the death of Christ.65

Calvin‘s view is very familiar to most modern-day Evangelicals, for they have followed

largely in his footsteps. His statements have a certain common-sense feel. After all,

how can some piece of bread and a sip or dip of wine impart to the recipient not only the

benefits of Christ‘s death and resurrection, but also Christ himself? Similarly, how can a

child who cannot comprehend what she is doing and what it is all about be allowed to

participate? It makes sense. It must be noted, however, that Calvin‘s view represents a

distinct break with the Fathers and the practice of the early church. Perhaps most

interesting is his comment that John 6 has nothing to say about the Lord‘s Supper. This

is also a departure from the nearly unanimous voice of the Fathers (and the Medieval

interpreters) concerning John 6.

What is perhaps even more astounding is that Luther (1483 – 1546) agrees with

Calvin‘s take on John 6. In his debate with Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy, Luther

argues for the indispensability of a corporeal presence of Christ in the bread and wine.

Zwingli, quoting John 6:63 (―the flesh is of no avail‖) states to Luther, ―You admit that

the spiritual eating alone gives comfort to the soul.‖66 To which Luther replies, ―We eat

65

Calvin’s Commentary on John 1-11 (trans. William Pringle; online:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xii.ix.html 66

Schaff, Modern Christianity: The German Reformation, online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.viii.html.)

W o l l a n | 27

the body with the mouth, not the soul. If God should place rotten apples before me, I

would eat them.‖67 After a little more quibbling, that particular discussion ended with

Luther pointing back to the words of the Institution which he had written in chalk on the

table and he denied that Jesus‘ discourse in John 6 had anything to do with the Lord‘s

Supper!68

V. Towards a Conclusion: A New-Old Way of Thinking

One can feel trapped in the in 400-plus year old debate over the presence of

Christ in Communion and whether or not John 6 actually has the sacrament in mind. As

mentioned earlier, perhaps a perusal of the history of interpretation can help us post-

moderns ask better questions. For example, why does Christ‘s presence in the

Eucharist have to be either a ghostly spiritual presence, or a crass and macabre affair

with real torn flesh and spilt blood? Are there no other options? Similarly, does John 6

have to be all about the Lord‘s Supper or only about spiritual union with God? The

lesson of the early church interpreters is that the believer does not have to live in an

either/or existence concerning these matters. The Fathers and even the Medieval

interpreters, to a large extent, seem to draw us into a world of both/and. A universe

where paradox and mystery actually open one‘s eyes and directs the gaze to the

stunning vistas of God‘s intentions toward us. The God of the universe, through the

mystery of the incarnation, seeks to be united to me and to you. And in a way that, in

the end, is not fully explainable or comprehendible, God uses the everyday stuff of

bread and wine as one of the means for accomplishing the reuniting of earth and

67

Ibid. 68

Ibid.

W o l l a n | 28

heaven, human and divine. For those who have walked with this God for any length of

time, this is not really a surprising notion.

Bibliography

Auerbach, Erich. Scenes from the Drama of European Literature. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter

Smith, 1973.

Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel of John. Edited by Edmund Hill, Allan Fitzgerald, and

Boniface Ramsey. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2009.

Bede the Venerable. Homilies on the Gospels: Book One, Advent to Lent. Translated by

Lawrence T. Martin, and David Hurst. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1991.

Bischof, Jon C. "John 6 and the Lord's Supper.” Thesis, Master of Sacred Theology, Concordia

Seminary, 1999. Online: http://dspace.asburyseminary.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/4793

Blowers, Paul M. Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy in Maximus the Confessor : An Investigation

of the Quaestiones Ad Thalassium. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press,

1991.

Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther : Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521-1532.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Dauphinais, Michael, and Matthew Levering . Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas :

Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of

America Press, 2005.

Elowsky, Joel C., and Thomas C. Oden. John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture: New Testament, vol. IVa. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Paraphrase on John. Translated by Jane E. Phillips. Collected Works of

Erasmus, vol. 46. Toronto ; University of Toronto Press, c1991., .

Erigena, Johannes Scotus. The Voice of the Eagle : The Heart of Celtic Christianity : John

Scotus Eriugena's Homily on the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John. Translated by

Christopher Bamford. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne Books, 2000.

Farag, Lois M. St. Cyril of Alexandria, a New Testament Exegete : His Commentary on the

Gospel of John. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007.

Farley, Lawrence R. The Gospel of John : Beholding the Glory. Ben Lomand, Calif.: Conciliar

Press, 2006.

W o l l a n | 29

Ford, J. Massyngberde. Redeemer--Friend and Mother : Salvation in Antiquity and in the Gospel

of John. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

Hanna, Eleanor B. "Biblical Interpretation and Sacramental Practice : John Calvin's

Interpretation of John 6:51-58." Worship 73, no. 3 (05, 1999): 211-230.

Harrill, J. A. "Cannibalistic Language in the Fourth Gospel and Greco-Roman Polemics of

Factionalism (John 6:52-66)." Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 1 (Spr, 2008): 133-

158.

Hazard, Mark. The Literal Sense and the Gospel of John in Late-Medieval Commentary and

Literature. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Houghton, H. A. G. Augustine's Text of John : Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel

Manuscripts. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Iserloh, Erwin, Joseph Glazik, Hubert Jedin , and Hubert Jedin . Reformation and Counter

Reformation. New York: Seabury Press, 1980.

John Chrysostom . Chrysostom : Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the

Hebrews. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

John of Damascus. Saint John of Damascus : Writings. Translated by Frederic Hathaway Chase.

The Father’s of the Church, vol. 37. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines . Revised ed. Prince Press, 2003.

Krey, Philip D. and Lesley Smith. Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture. Leiden: Brill,

2000.

Kurz, Joel R. "The Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanity: Irenaeus of Lyons'

Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist." Worship 83, no. 2 (03, 2009): 112-132.

Lawson, John. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. London: The Epworth Press, 1948.

Luther, Martin. Word and Sacrament III. Translated by Robert H. Fischer. Luther’s Works,

vol. 37. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959.

Martyn, J. Louis. The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays, for Interpreters. New York:

Paulist Press, 1978.

McKim, Donald K. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP

Academic, Inter-Varsity Press, 2007.

Origen. Origen. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

W o l l a n | 30

Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13 - 32. Translated by Ronald E.

Heine. The Fathers of the Church, vol. 89. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America

Press, 1993.

———. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1 - 10. Translated by Ronald E.

Heine. The Fathers of the Church, vol. 80. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America

Press, 1989.

Pagels, Elaine. "Irenaus, the 'Canon of Truth,' and the Gospel of John: 'Making a Difference'

through Hermeneutics and Ritual." Vigiliae Christianae 56, no. 4 (11, 2002): 339,

Permjakovs, Vitalijs. "Feeding upon the Word of God: The Exegesis of John 6:31-58 in the

Writings of Origen." Thesis, M.Div. St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, 2004.

Online: http://dspace.asburyseminary.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/4500 .

Phillips, Peter. "Allusion and Meaning in John 6." Journal for the Study of the New Testament

29, no. 5 (2007): 68-68.

Rakestraw, Robert V. "Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis". Bethel

Theological Seminary. Online:

http://dspace.asburyseminary.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/7758 .

Schaff, Philip. "History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. the German

Reformation. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Online:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.viii.html.

Webster, Jane S. Ingesting Jesus : Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John. Atlanta: Society

of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Young, Frances M. and NetLibrary, Inc. "Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian

Culture." Cambridge University Press.